Karisma Kapoor's kids move Delhi high court for share in Sunjay Kapur's Rs 30,000 crore estate, accuse stepmother Priya Kapur of 'forging' the will

Karisma Kapoor’s children, Samaira and Kiaan Kapoor, have approached the Delhi High Court seeking a share in their late father Sunjay Kapur’s Rs 30,000 crore estate.

The duo has moved a suit through their mother, Karisma and have asked to recognise them as Class I legal heirs to Kapur’s personal assets.

Samaira and Kiaan Kapoor have accused their stepmother, Priya Kapur (Sunjay’s third wife), of usurping the “full control” of their father’s assets by “forging” the will after Sunjay’s sudden demise in the UK in June this year.

“The present suit is not with respect to the assets forming part of the trust, and the plaintiffs reserve their rights in connection with the matters relating to the Trust,” clarifying that the present suit filed is separate from what they will inherit from the RK Family Trust.

More from Entertainment

'Jugnuma' Movie Review: Manoj Bajpayee-Deepak Dobriyal’s terrific performances stood out in this beautifully restrained way of storytelling 'Downton Abbey: The Grand Finale' Movie Review: The final goodbye of Julian Fellowes’s beloved British soap

“The entire charade created by defendant No.1 (Priya Kapur) in collusion and conspiracy with the two individuals, along with the alleged executor, Defendant No. 4, coupled with the obstinate refusal to provide a copy of the alleged purported will, only shows that the alleged will is shrouded by suspicious circumstances,” the suit read.

“The plaintiffs submit that the purported will allegedly executed by the plaintiffs’ father is not a legal and valid document, is forged and fabricated and in any event surrounded by suspicious circumstances. It is for this reason that neither the original of the alleged will has been shown to the plaintiffs nor a copy of it has been provided,” the suit further said.

“Since it was not disclosed to the plaintiffs whether the purported Will was registered or not, the plaintiffs verily believe that it was not registered,” the suit added.

“Now the so-called will mysteriously emerged, and that too statedly from the two individuals, who are very close to the defendant no 1 and had been closely involved with her on a regular basis,” the suit read.

“It is unnatural and not a normal conduct that the said two Individuals would have waited for more than seven weeks before revealing the so-called will. It has later been revealed that Nitin Sharma had also been awarded a position in a company, as narrated later,” it added.

“Neither defendant no. 1, nor the said individuals (i.e., Mr Dinesh Agarwal and Mr Nitin Sharma), with whom there had been interactions in the past months, had at any earlier point of time revealed any such alleged will. Rather, defendant no. 1 had always stated that there was no will of the deceased. In none of the conversations, either telephonically or on messaging, had Defendant no. 1 informed about any such so-called will.”

The suit also comprised Sunjay’s bond with Kiaan and Samaira at length. “Their father often spoke to them about their future, education, future goals, giving guidance and suggestions. In the conversations, he always assured them that they should pursue their education and passions fully without worries, as he had taken adequate steps to secure their future.”

“He used to say that he had started businesses bearing their name, had acquired assets in his personal name, or by/in the name of Companies under his control, as well as through the family Trust (in the name and style of RK Family Trust) and in all of which the plaintiffs’ were beneficiaries,” suit said.

“The present suit is not with respect to the assets forming part of the trust and the plaintiffs reserve their rights in connection with the matters relating to the trust,” it clarified.

“As decided by him for the plaintiffs, the necessary documentation, being the Power of Attorney was executed by the Plaintiffs. This was sent to his representative on 07.06.2025 by way of a WhatsApp message and subsequently sent in original as well,” the suit claimed.